Why Anti-Blasphemy Laws Ban All Religions

Oct 12, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: OpEdNews

The effort by a large portion of the Muslim world, including the Egyptian and Iranian presidents, to render blasphemy illegal around the globe is truly, really stupid, as well as immoral.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of27
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 10

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

2

As posted on that site, pending possible censorship by biased "moderators":

----------
Why be surprised? All religious cults become violent toward others when they achieve enough power, whether that be by suicide bombers, arsonists, genocide or any other means.

If any one of the thousands of alleged "gods" cared about blasphemy, it would deal with the blasphemer itself. The fact that "gods" don't do anything proves one of two things:

(1) The mythical "gods" don't care about blasphemy.

(2) The mythical "gods" don't exist.

If it's the second, then blaphemy laws are a load of crap, written by violence cultists and not a "god". And if the first is true, then the cultists are choosing to be violent when their "god" doesn't care about the acts of non-believers and non-members. Either way, blasphemy laws aren't written to defend any mythical "gods", they are excuses by cultists to commit acts of violence against those whom they don't like. It's not about "morality", it's about legalizing terrorism...but then, that's what religion is, legalized terrorism.

.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Very good post. An interesting subject especially in today's age.

Thanks

“Alea iacta est!”

Since: Oct 06

Oh it's ON!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 13, 2012
 
P_Smith wrote:
As posted on that site, pending possible censorship by biased "moderators":
----------
Why be surprised? All religious cults become violent toward others when they achieve enough power, whether that be by suicide bombers, arsonists, genocide or any other means.
If any one of the thousands of alleged "gods" cared about blasphemy, it would deal with the blasphemer itself. The fact that "gods" don't do anything proves one of two things:
(1) The mythical "gods" don't care about blasphemy.
(2) The mythical "gods" don't exist.
If it's the second, then blaphemy laws are a load of crap, written by violence cultists and not a "god". And if the first is true, then the cultists are choosing to be violent when their "god" doesn't care about the acts of non-believers and non-members. Either way, blasphemy laws aren't written to defend any mythical "gods", they are excuses by cultists to commit acts of violence against those whom they don't like. It's not about "morality", it's about legalizing terrorism...but then, that's what religion is, legalized terrorism.
.
Brilliant!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 13, 2012
 
P_Smith wrote:
As posted on that site, pending possible censorship by biased "moderators":
----------
Why be surprised? All religious cults become violent toward others when they achieve enough power, whether that be by suicide bombers, arsonists, genocide or any other means.
If any one of the thousands of alleged "gods" cared about blasphemy, it would deal with the blasphemer itself. The fact that "gods" don't do anything proves one of two things:
(1) The mythical "gods" don't care about blasphemy.
(2) The mythical "gods" don't exist.
If it's the second, then blaphemy laws are a load of crap, written by violence cultists and not a "god". And if the first is true, then the cultists are choosing to be violent when their "god" doesn't care about the acts of non-believers and non-members. Either way, blasphemy laws aren't written to defend any mythical "gods", they are excuses by cultists to commit acts of violence against those whom they don't like. It's not about "morality", it's about legalizing terrorism...but then, that's what religion is, legalized terrorism.
.
As always, spot on.

“PROUD INFIDEL”

Since: Nov 08

The Crusades got it right!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 13, 2012
 
P_Smith wrote:
As posted on that site, pending possible censorship by biased "moderators":
----------
Why be surprised? All religious cults become violent toward others when they achieve enough power, whether that be by suicide bombers, arsonists, genocide or any other means.
If any one of the thousands of alleged "gods" cared about blasphemy, it would deal with the blasphemer itself. The fact that "gods" don't do anything proves one of two things:
(1) The mythical "gods" don't care about blasphemy.
(2) The mythical "gods" don't exist.
If it's the second, then blaphemy laws are a load of crap, written by violence cultists and not a "god". And if the first is true, then the cultists are choosing to be violent when their "god" doesn't care about the acts of non-believers and non-members. Either way, blasphemy laws aren't written to defend any mythical "gods", they are excuses by cultists to commit acts of violence against those whom they don't like. It's not about "morality", it's about legalizing terrorism...but then, that's what religion is, legalized terrorism.
.
Agree 100%
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 13, 2012
 
Or to put it another way: one man's blasphemy is another man's satire.

Freedom of speech is what is important to humanity, not stopping "blasphemy".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blasphemy
Blasphemy implies that something is sacred or sacrosanct, but most people are indifferent to what is sacred others,(e.g. Mohammed's name or image)- and that is only reasonable.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 13, 2012
 
EdSed wrote:
Or to put it another way: one man's blasphemy is another man's satire.
Freedom of speech is what is important to humanity, not stopping "blasphemy" ...
Is it important to President Obama?

"... And there is no way the United States is going to overturn the key premise of its democratic founding by enacting an anti-blasphemy amendment that guts the First Amendment."

Obama's UN remarks about there being no future for those who slander Mohammed not only guts the First Amendment but contradicts its "establishment clause" by advocating one established religion over others, i.e., Obama essentially said there is no future for Jews and Christians who don't accept Mohammed as THEIR prophet, which in the islamic world is equivalent to slander.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 13, 2012
 
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it important to President Obama?
I don't think it is less important to Pres Obama than to you or I.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
"... And there is no way the United States is going to overturn the key premise of its democratic founding by enacting an anti-blasphemy amendment that guts the First Amendment."
Obama's UN remarks about there being no future for those who slander Mohammed not only guts the First Amendment but contradicts its "establishment clause" by advocating one established religion over others, i.e., Obama essentially said there is no future for Jews and Christians who don't accept Mohammed as THEIR prophet, which in the islamic world is equivalent to slander.
I think Pres Obama's remarks need to be seen in context.

The question is: what should the US reaction be?

I tend to agree that one should support freedom of speech over religious or dogmatic objections to satire, but Obama has done that. All the remarks of his that I have read or heard all support people's freedom of speech (e.g. the rights of people to make videos such as "Innocence of Muslims". The point he clearly makes,(for those who are genuinely interested in his view) is that people shouldn't deliberately offend Muslims. That is perfectly fair. One shouldn't deliberately offend anyone.

I would like to see him emphasise the fact that blasphemy is merely a form of satire, but I don't think many people in the world are ready to entirely accept that view at present. He should also state that one cannot blaspheme against a religion to which one doesn't subscribe. It will take time for such facts to be more widely accepted.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

EdSed wrote:
The point he clearly makes,(for those who are genuinely interested in his view) is that people shouldn't deliberately offend Muslims ...
What doesn't offend muslims?

If I say "Jesus is Lord," doesn't that offend muslims who claim that their mohammed is the "seal of the prophets," or if I believe in the Trinity, doesn't that contradict the prohibition in the qu'ran to even say the word "three" in regards to the Godhead?

And whatever the context, Obama still violated the establishment clause of the US First Amendment during his UN speech.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 13, 2012
 
blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Chuckles

Wylie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Blasphemy is a blast-for-me! Religion is just funny and the stuff of comedy. Many comedians get their schtick from observing religionists at play and from the hilarious religious texts. The bible is a source of dark comedy. Hell, just take a good look at the main character, Yahweh...He/She/It/They regularly makes idiotic pronouncements which He/She/It/They violates within a span of a paragraph. Yahweh demands the most bizarre, sadistic, disgusting and just plain stupid rituals (obsession with foreskins, animal sacrifices, bludgeoning his own kid who was Himself so as to sacrifice Himself to Himself, etc.) His jealousy is the stuff of laughter. Yahweh-the-Yahoo constantly treats "his creation" like a gum-snapping kid who is angry at the science project that exploded in his face due to an excess of vinegar and baking soda. As long as you have comedians colliding with religious texts, the outcome WILL be blasphemy.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
...
And whatever the context, Obama still violated the establishment clause of the US First Amendment during his UN speech.
I haven't heard the speech, Joe, I have only heard of it.(I have more confidence in Pres Obama than your personal view or interpretation of what he said - no offence intended :-)

We must bare in mind that speeches made to the UN will be reported in Cairo and NW Pakistan. What he says needs to be understood and sound reasonable there too, not just to US republicans or pedants.

All I can say at present is that if you think you are more determined to defend the US constitution than you are, my guess is that you're mistaken. He just has other considerations beyond the establishment clause of the first amendment to consider.

There are state legislatures that have made it illegal for an atheist to hold public office in the USA and that probably violates all sorts of US constitutional items or amendments, should the USA be dismissed as backward and ignorant as a result? Life isn't that simple.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/...

To clarify, this the speech you mean?...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-1...
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 13, 2012
 
I meant "All I can say at present is that if you think you are more determined to defend the US constitution than President Obama is, my guess is that you're mistaken.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 13, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Unlike rioting
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 13, 2012
 
This is the transcript of Pres Obama's speech to the Gen Assembly of the UN in NY, 25th Sept...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/o...

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

By Erick Erickson in RedState.com :

"It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. Thatís just a fact. If you donít believe me, you go into the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.

"Then Barack Obama went on to say 'Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.' Note he says we cannot 'slander the prophet of Islam' but itís only the image of Christ in the next sentence ó not actually Christ himself desecrated. If this is so, why does Barack Obamaís government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.?"

Selective outrage?
Amused

Lowell, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it important to President Obama?
"... And there is no way the United States is going to overturn the key premise of its democratic founding by enacting an anti-blasphemy amendment that guts the First Amendment."
Obama's UN remarks about there being no future for those who slander Mohammed not only guts the First Amendment but contradicts its "establishment clause" by advocating one established religion over others, i.e., Obama essentially said there is no future for Jews and Christians who don't accept Mohammed as THEIR prophet, which in the islamic world is equivalent to slander.
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. If that's a direct quote from the president, then, what he said is that there is no way the US would adopt any such blasphemy laws as proposed by the islamists. Which is the exact opposite of the spin you are reading into it. I guess, in the spirit of bi-partisnaship, the White House should illustrate the president's remarks with stick figures, in crayon, so republicans can participate in the discussion with some comprehension of what the adults are talking about.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 13, 2012
 
Joe DeCaro wrote:
By Erick Erickson in RedState.com :
"It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. Thatís just a fact. If you donít believe me, you go into the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.
"Then Barack Obama went on to say 'Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.' Note he says we cannot 'slander the prophet of Islam' but itís only the image of Christ in the next sentence ó not actually Christ himself desecrated. If this is so, why does Barack Obamaís government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.?"
Selective outrage?
In a small way, but that misses the point of what is being said.

I think that, if one is genuinely interested in what Pres Obama thinks, he stands for freedom of speech and expression first. Your comments just show that religionists will argue interminably. All a reasonable person can do is try to take account of people's sensitivities.

If you think that Christians are treated with less caution than Muslims, in general, I think you are probably right but Christians are not less well-respected. Christians tend to be western educated, or at least open to western democratic ideals. They are also,(in the most general sense) more peaceful. This is because many Muslims are (generally) less well-educated. Some Muslims are actually taught that western democracy is hypocritical at best, or even demonical. As a result, politicians in responsible positions (such as Obama) try not to ignite violence or unrest over religious matters. Naturally, one has to be more cautious regarding the more volatile. I think Christians have earned respect by their patience where Muslims have earned condemnation and justified ridicule.
Amused

Lowell, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

if allah and yahweh are so powerful and all-knowing, why would they need blasphemy laws? The holy books of all the desert religions are rife with accounts of god/allah smiting people who offended them, in all sorts of creative ways from being mauled by bears, devoured by lions, hemorrhoids, turned into a pillar of salt, etc. Have the old time gods lost something off their fastball? Or do the theists really know in their hearts their gods are myths, and need laws to prevent anyone from pointing out their emperor has no clothes?
Morales

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 13, 2012
 
Amused wrote:
if allah and yahweh are so powerful and all-knowing, why would they need blasphemy laws? The holy books of all the desert religions are rife with accounts of god/allah smiting people who offended them, in all sorts of creative ways from being mauled by bears, devoured by lions, hemorrhoids, turned into a pillar of salt, etc. Have the old time gods lost something off their fastball? Or do the theists really know in their hearts their gods are myths, and need laws to prevent anyone from pointing out their emperor has no clothes?
true, why is allah so touchy, petty and vengeful?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of27
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••